About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
to provide a voice of the world. last week's european council agreed the overall limit on eu spending for the next seven years, starting in 2014. been agreed in the past, spending has gone up, but last week we agreed that spending should come down. by working with like-minded allies, we delivered a real- terms cut in what brussels can spend for the first time in history. as the house knows, the eu budget is negotiated annually, so what we were negotiating -- initially at the council last november and again last week -- was not the individual annual budgets, but rather the overall framework for the next seven years. this includes the overall ceilings on what can be spent -- effectively, the limit on the european union's credit card for the next seven years. during the last negotiation, which covered the period 2007 to 2013, the last government agreed to an 8% increase in the payments ceiling, to 943 billion. put simply, this gave the eu a credit card with a higher limit, and today we are still living with the results of allowing the eu's big spenders to push for more and more spending
with the eu. not necessarily with a decent of urgency. it does not suggest a great deal of pace. it may surprise you that we want this as much as you do. ladies and gentlemen, important as they are, services can be seen in perspective " for be made of the defining narrative. while we must sort out these challenges, it is not in our interest to define racial profiling. we will discuss market access issues at the trade policy forum. we also need to find a positive narrative that will bind our countries together. one is in the energy sector. without access to energy inputs, we will not be able to sustain economic development. therefore, an enduring partnership should not only cover technological and regulatory aspects, but established commercial partnerships. as the u.s. becomes a net exporter of energy, we hope we can develop mutually beneficial partnerships. renewable energy, biofuels and emission technologies. in each of these cases, there can be immediate benefits for both sides. you're interested in exporting natural gas and exporting to non fta countries would help stabilize internat
as a terrorist organization. the second thing, in 2006 you were one of 12 senators who refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the
, but not much more than that. the eu is providing non-legal aid, i am wondering if the u.s. is considering this? and if you are ceding influence for the ron. afghanistan has asked u.s. troops to leave the province and i think within two weeks, can we get your comment on that? >> with respect to afghanistan, i understand the concerns they have expressed. appropriately, when a complaint they may have thought to be appropriately evaluated. they will be, i assure you. i have taken appropriate note and i have had a great deal of involvement in afghanistan with president karzai. there are evaluations of how things might have gone wrong or might have changed. we are working on a bilateral security arrangement and this transition process. we have had a very good conversation with the president. president obama talked to him before making announcements. we have listened very carefully to his observations about wanting to speed up the transition with respect to management of security. i can assure you that we are finely attuned to the needs of the afghan people, and the most effective ways to make this t
-- not pipeline, partnership. he announced the united states was ready to begin negotiations with europe on a u.s.-eu trade ownership. we could not agree more. let's hurry up and put american business to work. let's get these deals done. by the way, it is not just about asia. it includes all the coasts of the united states and canada and america. it is fascinating. we need to get this going and move that european deal. the working group is about to put out a report. i think it will probably sustain the best teams we can think about. let me give you this in a minute. europe is in a slow economy. europe is our largest export partner. europe is china's largest export your. china is our fastest growing export partner. if europe goes into the can, the whole triangle goes in the can. that is a bad idea. this would be huge on both sides of the pond. there are a lot of big trade agreements that have been talked about for a long time. these would put cash on the table right now. it is important that we welcome global investment. we want people to bring their cash here. come here and invest or come here and vi
sanctions is by legislation, under the legislation, and then we have the e.u. sanctions and others that people follow mandated by the security council. the e.u. seems to be more flexible than we are, so there is operating room there. there is operating room in not putting more sanctions on the table could be helpful as an initial step. that would be important. each one of these the president would have to explain he is getting value, that the europeans to take sanctions off central banks and petroleum. that we could do things that i think are absolutely necessary. we have had a longstanding policy of not sanctioning food and medicine for good reasons, and when i was in the security council, in iraq we made them carefully. that got screwed up in oil for food, and i do not want to talk about that, but that was an example of how things could go wrong. the basis was the right basis and that even in the worst of all possible situations, you cannot punish the population, particularly, for the sins of their leaders, especially if they did not choose the leaders. we have a situation where
-- inside "the baltimore sun" -- then in foreign affairs news -- then, the eu decides not to arm rebels in syria -- that is the washington post this morning. bp is ready for court -- the washington post is reporting about strange bedfellows -- there is a provision in the bill that charges a smoker 50% more for medications and patience to do not use a stick -- who do not use tobacco. here is a quote -- we're talking about armed guards in school. we have time for one more phone call. nick in columbus -- colombia, maryland, you're the last. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. host: what are your thoughts? caller: we are very reactive, not proactive. it is only a matter of time before we should have expected something like this to happen in a school. this keeps repeating and repeating. we put guards in their pour about four years. then we cut money out of the budget. something will happen, we will put them back in. for my republican friends who said he wants teachers to take training, they cannot stop dating our students. how will they be able to carry a gun? i do not think th
. but if the questioning gets difficult i'm going to try to look like i were him and direct the questions away from 3450eus. the central question is why is the economy not growing faster after a deep recession? and i think there are three primary reasons for that but before i state those reasons i would like to make one factual observation which is this is not the weakest recovery in memory. it is not the weakest of the last two. the 2001 recovery was substantially slower than this one. what is different about this one is it is not v shaped in the way professor points out in his testimony. it was after the deep recessions of 1975 and 1982. i think there are three reasons why that is. the first is this recession came from the popping of a bubble unlike the 1982 and 1975 recessions and popping bubbles are much more difficult to escape from the grips of than are the other. so in 1982 my dear friend paul voker rose the -- the interest rates rose to over 20% on mortgages. economic activity slowed dramically as interest rates came down that pinned up demand came right back. that is not having a do a lot of stru
of say, how about the last few years? the u.s. emissions are down, i think 8%. e.u. emissions are down 9%. chinese emissions are up 30%. look at where the coal is being burned. i think in five years india is supposed to become the second largest burner of coal right behind china. the gobal picture -- if the national one isn't enough to make you cry, think globally about where we're going. so that's the crying part. you asked me for bright spots. there are actually are some, so relax. the new car standards will double fuel economy by 2025. california is moving ahead and it is a real bright spot. they are strengthening their targets, that's a bright spot. they got a plan, they have a program, south korea is thinking about instituting emissions trading. china has seven experiments around the country looking at emissions trading. you see some signs then you have these big looming clouds. we have to find a way to get through this and, god, i hope you're not looking for me for all the answers. it isn't all bleak but people better get on to it and get on to it really fast. otherwise it will get
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)